Antimicrobial prophylaxis in management of urinary tract stones by extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: is it necessary?

Evaluating the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to ESWL in patients with sterile urine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this review is to evaluate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) on asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) and urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients with sterile urine undergoing ESWL.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Registry were searched systematically for randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of AP in patients with sterile urine undergoing SWL up to May 2020. Risk ratios were used to compare dichotomous outcomes. A stratified analysis was performed depending on the risk of bias assessment of the included studies. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients that underwent instrumentation of the urinary tract.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Sixteen studies were evaluated including 2442 patients. When evaluating all the included studies (regardless of the risk of bias assessment), the risk of AB was RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P=0.42 and the risk of UTI was RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.22-1.36, P=0.19. When excluding the high risk of bias studies, the risk for AB was RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.63-1.28, P=0.55 and for UTI RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.38-3.72, P=0.77. When evaluating patients that underwent instrumentation of the urinary tract the risk for AB was RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27, P=0.6 and for UTI was RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.22-2.22, P=0.54.

CONCLUSIONS

AP is not necessary for patients with sterile urine prior to ESWL for the prevention of UTI. Also, patients that undergo instrumentation of the urinary tract prior to or during ESWL do not benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis but further research is required.

Routine Antibiotic Prophylaxis Is Not Required for Patients Undergoing Shockwave Lithotripsy: Outcomes from a National Shockwave Lithotripsy Database in New Zealand

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of routine prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI) after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and identify predictors of UTI development in a multicenter series of over 10,000 stone cases treated in New Zealand over a 20-year period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated with SWL on the Mobile Medical Technology vehicle between June 19, 1995 and December 1, 2014 were identified. Data collection was undertaken prospectively for patient, stone and treatment characteristics, and, retrospectively, for treatment outcomes. The primary outcome was clinical UTI, defined as development of UTI symptoms requiring antibiotic therapy. Secondary outcomes included urinary sepsis, need for hospital admission due to infectious complications, and length of hospital stay. Multivariate analysis was undertaken to identify factors independently associated with the development of post-SWL UTI.

RESULTS

Antibiotic prophylaxis was used in 62.1% (n = 6710) of cases. On comparing patients who received prophylactic antibiotics to those in whom antibiotics were withheld, no significant differences were observed in terms of post-SWL UTI (1.1% vs 1.3%, p = 0.335) or urinary sepsis (0.04% vs 0.15%, p = 0.075). The use of prophylactic antibiotics was not independently associated with post-SWL UTI (OR: 1.269, 95% CI: 0.886-1.818, p = 0.194). Female gender, larger stone size, and higher number of delivered shocks were predictive of UTI development, but antibiotic prophylaxis did not appear to offer any benefit in this subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine antibiotic prophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in clinical UTI after SWL in this cohort of over 10,000 stone cases in New Zealand.

Perioperative cultures and the role of antibiotics during stone surgery

Urinary tract infection and urosepsis are the most common complications associated with the procedures urologists employ to manage stone disease. Recommendations regarding antibiotic prophylaxis and utilization of perioperative urine and stone culture prior to shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or endoscopic intervention have evolved overtime. We sought to provide readers with a comprehensive consensus regarding these most recent recommendations.

Incidence of infectious complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients without associated risk factors

PURPOSE

We determined the incidence of infectious complications (asymptomatic bacteriuria, urinary tract infection and urosepsis) in patients without associated risk factors treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an observational, prospective cohort study between October 2010 and June 2013. We included all patients without risk factors who were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney or ureteral lithiasis. All patients underwent urine culture 5 days before the procedure. Another urine culture was performed 7 days after lithotripsy. No patient received antibiotics.

RESULTS

Initially 366 patients with a mean ± SD age of 53 ± 13 years were enrolled in the study. A total of 64 patients (17.5%) underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with a previously placed Double-J® stent. After lithotripsy urine culture was positive in 20 patients (5.8%), of whom 4 (1.2%) presented with symptomatic urinary infection and the remaining 4.6% showed no symptoms. Urosepsis did not develop in any case. In our study patient age was an independent risk factor for bacteriuria after lithotripsy.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of infectious complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients without risk factors is low. This leads us to conclude that without defined risk factors antibiotic prophylaxis is not justified. Also, elderly patients were more at risk for bacteriuria after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and, thus, for a possible infectious complication.

Japanese guidelines for prevention of perioperative infections in urological field

For urologists, it is very important to master surgical indications and surgical techniques. On the other hand, the knowledge of the prevention of perioperative infections and the improvement of surgical techniques should always be considered. Although the prevention of perioperative infections in each surgical field is a very important issue, the evidence and the number of guidelines are limited. Among them, the preparation of guidelines has progressed, especially in gastrointestinal surgery. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proposed guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections, which have been used worldwide. In urology, the original guidelines were different from those of general surgery, due to many endourological procedures and urine exposure in the surgical field. The Japanese Society of UTI Cooperative Study Group has thus framed these guidelines supported by The Japanese Urological Association. The guidelines consist of the following nine techniques: open surgeries, laparoscopic surgeries, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, ureterorenoscope and transurethral lithotripsy, transurethral resection of the prostate, prostate biopsy, cystourethroscope, pediatric surgeries in the urological field, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and febrile neutropenia. These are the first guidelines for the prevention of perioperative infections in the urological field in Japan. Although most of these guidelines were made using reliable evidence, there are parts without enough evidence. Therefore, if new reliable data is reported, it will be necessary for these guidelines to be revised in the future.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children: Results and short-term complications

AIM

The introduction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy represented an important evolution in urinary tract lithiasis management. The aim of this study is to describe the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of urinary tract lithiasis in children, focusing on the index of elimination of the calculi and the complications occurring during the procedure and during the following three months.

METHODS

From September 1991 to July 2002, 135 children between one and 12 years, suffering from urinary tract lithiasis underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. A retrospective analysis of these patients was carried out.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-five calculi ranging in size from 5.0 mm to 20.0 mm were treated, out of which 147 were found in the kidneys and 48 in the ureter. Urinary tract dilation was presented by 30% of the children at the time of the procedure. After extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 75.8% of the calculi were eliminated: 64.1% were stone-free and 11.7% had < or = 4 mm stones. Ureteral calculi and 5-10 mm stones responded better than the kidney and 11-20 mm stones (P = 0.027 and P = 0.012, respectively). No differences were detected according to the calculi location, whether in the ureter or kidney (P = 0.637 and P = 0.703, respectively). The shock wave intensity of 14kv was as efficient as the higher voltage. Short-term complications were observed in 23.7%, characterized by fever and pain.

CONCLUSION

In children, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy proved to be able to eliminate 75.8% of the treated calculi and 83.7% of the patients presented a complete or partial response. Complications were observed in 23.7% of patients, and pain was the most frequent symptom.

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi with respect to patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study where a total of 212 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL (n = 92) using Dornier lithotriptor S (MedTech Europe GmbH) or URS (n = 120). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were assessed for each group.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, stone size, and side of treatment. The stone-free status for ESWL and URS at 3 months was 81.5% and 97.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). In addition, 88% of patients who underwent ESWL versus 20% who underwent URS were discharged home the day of procedure. Minor complications occurred in 3.3% and 8.3% of the ESWL and URS groups, respectively (p = 0.127). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the URS group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the URS than ESWL group, although the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Patient satisfaction was high for both groups, including 94% for URS and 80% for ESWL (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

URS is more effective than ESWL for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. ESWL was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for URS according to the questionnaire used in this study.

[Extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedure in urology]

Since 1980, extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has become the first line treatment for most stones in adults and children. The indications are based on criteria depending on localization, chemical composition and size of the renal and ureteral calculi. Since the DORNIER HM 3 which remains the gold standard of first generation lithotripters, many devices of second and third generation have been built (electro hydrolic, piezo electric and electromagnetic) with fluoroscopic and ultrasound localization systems. SWL may now be performed on an out-patient basis without anaesthesia or under neuroleptic analgesia. Indications and evaluation criteria on 3 months plain abdominal X-ray are better defined since 1996. Nevertheless, comparison of reported results remains difficult due to the multiplicity of lithotripter types and the lack of consensus on efficacy criteria. Today, the third generation of mobile electromagnetic lithotripters give an average of 80% stone free rate of patients with kidney and ureteral calculi whatever the localization and size.

Urinary Tract Infections after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been using since a long time in the treatment of urolithiasis; until now it is not universally stated if such a procedure represents a risk factor for the development of complications (such as pyelonephritis) and if the same procedure needs an antimicrobial prophylaxis. We began a prospective study in order to evaluate the clinical and microbiological follow-up of all the patients undergoing ESWL at the Centre of urologic lithotripsy of the University of Pisa into a two months period.

Methods

Fifty-four consecutive patients were enrolled (38 males and 16 females). All the patients were studied, examining their urine samples before ESWL and after one week and evaluating their risk factors for urinary tract infections.

Results

12 (22.2 %) out of 54 patients had a significant bacteriuria (≥ 104 CFU/mL) before undergoing ESWL; such bacteriuria persisted in eight of the twelve patients even though they received an appropriate antimicrobial therapy. 41 (75.9%) patients without a significant bacteriuria at the enrollment remained asymptomatic –with sterile urine- after ESWL and they did not receive therapy. One patient with multiple stones, who had a clinical history of previous urinary infections, developed an acute pyelonephritis after ESWL when she stopped the antibiotic terapy.

Conclusions

Such preliminary data seem to show that the risk of developing urinary infections after ESWL is represented primarily by a history of previous urinary infections and by the presence of an asymptomatic urinary tract infection before ESWL. The decision about the need of an antimicrobial prophylaxis should be taken in every single case basing on the peculiar clinic history of the patient.

[Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the urinary tract in patients with one kidney]

Extracorporeal Shock Waves Lithotripsy (ESWL) is a method of choice in the treatment of lithiasis. Surgical treatment is reduced to minimum, which in our case means 1-2%. Contraindications for using this method are: blood coagulation disorders, manifest tuberculosis, pregnancy, overobesity. Thanks to appropriate indications and technique which is used in an adequate way as well as to various endurological manipulations, removal of a stone by this method is safe, trauma is minimised, which is very important for patients with one kidney. During the last three years, usually in hospital conditions, 57 patients were treated in this way. Removal of a stone was performed by Extracorporeal Shock Waves Lithotripsy as mono therapy in 30 (53%) patients; Extracorporeal Shock Waves Lithotripsy by using Double-J catheter in 16 (28%) patients; Extracorporeal Lithotripsy with urine derivation by percutaneous nephrostome in 11 (19%) patients. Endurological methods were used in 27 patients. Disintegration of stone was performed in the proper way. Full success was reached. Two patients had incrustation of ureteral catheter which had to be removed by surgery. In two other patients with inferior function of one kidney, after brief obstruction, haemodialisis was performed. Our results confirm that this method is nonaggressive, technically perfect for disintegration of urineorgans stone on all levels, followed by small complications which are often solved by endoscopic manipulations.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis prior to shock wave lithotripsy in patients with sterile urine before treatment: a meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of routine antimicrobial prophylaxis prior to shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with a sterile pretreatment urine culture.

METHODS

A structured MedLine search revealed eight prospective, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of active treatment versus placebo or no treatment (n = 885) and six clinical series (non-RCTs; n = 597) addressing the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for SWL. A meta-analysis was performed on the eight RCTs, with the primary outcome being the diagnosis of a urinary tract infection (UTI) post-SWL. A cost analysis was performed comparing a prophylactic strategy (prophylaxis for every patient and treatment for post-SWL UTIs) with a treatment-only strategy for post-SWL UTIs using various antimicrobial combinations and the median probability of post-SWL UTIs determined by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The incidence of post-SWL UTIs ranged from 0% to 28% in the control group and from 0% to 7.7% in the patients who underwent prophylaxis. Combining the placebo/no-drug treatment arms in the six RCTs by meta-analysis (Bayesian analysis) resulted in a median probability of a post-SWL UTI of 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8% to 8.4%). For the drug treatment arms, the median probability of a UTI was 2.1% (95% CI 0.9% to 3.6%). Relative risk (RR) analysis resulted in an overall RR of post-SWL UTIs with prophylaxis versus without prophylaxis of 0.45 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.93) (P = 0.0005). Depending on the antimicrobial regimen used for prophylaxis and treatment, a prophylactic strategy added minimally to the overall treatment cost of SWL, and proved cost beneficial when taking into consideration serious UTIs requiring inpatient treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A policy of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to SWL in patients with sterile pretreatment urine cultures is efficacious in reducing the rate of post-SWL UTIs. Discounting inpatient episodes for sepsis and acute pyelonephritis, however, the strategy is not cost-effective. In contrast, using literature-derived incidence estimates for post-SWL urosepsis or pyelonephritis necessitating inpatient treatment, prophylaxis becomes both efficacious and cost-effective, and thus constitutes a dominant strategy.